ETA: Stop commenting negatively about the person who shared this at all. If you want to talk about the article itself, fine, but I am not interested in hearing ANYTHING that constitutes negative commentary about my friend. I am dismissing any comments related to such.

One of my best friends just posted a link that broke me a little bit. It was a link to an article not written by him that he said he agreed with that...just...well...

He's not like this. This isn't who he is. He is absolutely not a misogynist, and is the most idealistic, kind, and generous human being I know. I had to respond to this.

First of all, let me stress one thing: ANYONE who comments or in any way suggests that I should not be friends with this person will not only have their comment dismissed, but will have all future comments left to me on any article dismissed, for all time. I am not playing — I don't want to hear that shit. Don't test me. I love this person like a brother, so unless you really don't want to talk to me ever again, don't say a single goddamn thing about that.

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as an article from AvfM that warrants further analysis. AvfM is the deepest, darkest pit of sociopathic misogynists on the internet. There is no such thing as an interesting hypothesis from AvfM — there is only hatred and bile from a place whence comes no light nor joy.

"Where there is good there must be evil. To feminists, women are good and men are the only convenient target to label as the evil enemy. The characterization of men as inherently violent and beastly is essential to maintaining the victim class of all women. While they insist that it’s not men they are fighting it’s the “patriarchy,” their plight is reduced unless the perpetrator is tangible. Patriarchy can’t be put in jail."

Oh look, it's the imaginary straw feminist! All men must be put into camps where they will be re-educated! Bras exist purely as fuel for bonfires! Penis = evil! Ok, fine, let's just assume for the sake of argument that these women are out there, somewhere, like Sasquatch. Guess how many of them I've met traveling in pretty extensive feminist circles? DID YOU GUESS NONE?! Because it's none. Guess the number of times I've been made to feel lesser, or unwelcome, or hated by a woman because I was a man. If you guessed the same answer as the first time, you win the "can mentally figure out how to operate pants without assistance" award. Congratulations!

"Yes, they are fighting an intangible construct, “patriarchy.” But as is the nature of constructs, they aren’t real and as you say “can’t be put in jail.” But this is the power of fighting a construct as opposed to a tangible enemy. It can be redefined at will. “Patriarchy” is like God. Like religious fanatics who see God in everything, feminists see Patriarchy in everything. It is proof of its own existence."

That's a perfect comparison, except for the fact that we actually have tangible, easy-to-see, prettyfreakingconvincing (if, again, you're not a deeply misogynistic sociopath, like EVERYONE on AvfM) evidence as to its existence. Believing in God is an act of faith. Believing in the existence of the Patriarchy in American society is an act of having more fucking brain cells than teeth. But, y'know, I'm sure the fact that we've never had a woman President is just because the ladeez lack the thinky-brains for the politics.

Skipping ahead because there's some stupid shit about Hegemonic masculinity that even I can't make interesting by mocking it:

"A war on a construct can go on forever. However, a war must be winnable and to win a war, there must be a tangible enemy. The war on drugs has its dealers. The war on terror has its Muslim extremists. The war on communism had Vietnam. The war on Patriarchy has men and as in any war, that enemy must be portrayed as evil."

Or, y'know, you can do what every feminist I have ever met does and portray Patriarchy as evil, and men as not evil. THAT IS ALSO THE THING THAT MIGHT BE HAPPENING.

Also, all the things I pointed out? Those are winnable battles in a war on Patriarchy. Every one of those things, and countless more. Saying "you can't fight a war on Patriarchy because constructs" is logically implying that you couldn't also, for example, fight a war against slavery, because that's also a social construct easily visible in the real world. But surely we've never done that, and every childhood field trip to Gettysburg must've been in my imagination.

"The result is “rape culture,” men being portrayed as violent wife beaters, child abusers, and molesters,"

Or, y'know, maybe we just portray violent wife beaters, child abusers, and molesters as violent wife beaters, child abusers, and molesters, because much of the time, no one else fucking is.

" fathers become “deadbeat dads,” or stumbling, bumbling oafs who can do nothing right, and so on."

Can we just take a pause here to all justifiably laugh at the "teh menz are discriminatud against beecuz of teh dumb TV dadz" ideology that you see so often in MRA discourse? I'll wait.

"War can then be fought against such men. It can be won by either eliminating men, or by eliminating masculinity."

Ok, find me someone who wants to eliminate men and I will show you someone who belongs (and probably IS) in a mental institution — as well as someone who no one in mainstream feminism takes seriously.

Now, eliminating MASCULINITY is something else, and something that bears actually getting serious about for a moment. It's not that feminists want to eliminate "the things that are masculine." What feminists want is to decouple the idea of things being considered masculine or feminine from what those things actually are — thus, a boy who likes playing with dolls won't be shunned for it by society, and a woman who likes video games and football won't be seen as lesser or be forced to be tested on her knowledge of said subjects to prove that she's not secretly lying about liking them. What feminists want, in point of fact, is for everyone to be able to do and love the things that they love according to who they actually are as a person, without society judging them for not conforming enough to stereotypical gender roles (which are fucking bullshit).

This absolutely goes along with eliminating things like "the guy must make the first move," "men must pay for everything in relationships" (when you point out that feminists hate this concept to MRA's, they put their hands in their ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU NO THEY DON'T"), "men have to be the one to propose," "women have to take their partner's name when they get married," and — again, something MRA's like those at AvfM refuse to acknowledge — "women should not automatically have an advantage in child custody hearings." No matter how much you try to shout us down, dickshits, feminists actually agree with you on that.

He spends the next paragraph explaining the concept of Shrodinger's Cat, which is probably necessary for his usual audience since most of them had to repeat fifth grade multiple times, but I'm just going to assume everyone here knows what the fuck Shrodinger's Cat is. After all, feminists are smart people. UNLIKE FUCKING MRA'S IF YOU MISSED THAT WHEN I SAID IT THE FIRST TIME.

"If one views feminism as the box, men and women as the cat, and feminists as the physicists standing outside looking at the box, but refusing to open it to look inside, then one gets an idea of feminist discourse. It is a system of ethics based on utilitarianism and a pragmatist approach to science. Ethics and truth are subjectively based on happiness and utility. Utilitarian morality is based upon outcome of actions, not the actions themselves; creating a subjective ethical system where the end justifies the means. The subjective nature of utilitarian ethics permits the feminist to characterize men as either good or evil as it suits the purpose. For instance, if there is no difference between men and women, men must be good by nature (because women are). Therefore the evil of masculinity can be eliminated by re-socializing men to make them act more like women."

Oh, for fuck's sake. No, we want everyone to just be who they fucking are. I can't even come up with a joke here. Also, a "pragmatist approach to science" sounds like a dog-whistle to that reliable old pile of bullshit, Evolutionary Psychology, which I'm not even going to bother with right now because I can't even. I am in every possible way unable to even. My evens have encountered a shipping error and have been returned to sender.

"The utility in this feminist belief is that it can be used to sell feminism to men and create male feminists. At the same time, feminists can argue that men are inherently evil (all men are rapists) and call for their elimination. The utility here is that the elimination of men would create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of women. The end (happiness) justifies the means (gendercide). It is why an entire audience of otherwise “good” women can laugh and scream in joy when Sharon Osborne said it was fabulous that a man had his penis severed by his wife for wanting a divorce. It eliminates cognitive dissonance."

I love that they always bring up that one Sharon Osborne thing like either indicative of a trend or relevant in any way. I could use the same logic to say that because former ABA enforcer John Brisker became (according to rumor) a mercenary in Africa, professional basketball has a problem with encouraging sectarian violence.

Also, kudos for coining "gendercide," I needed to laugh tonight. I am consistently amazed that this fuckhat seems to think there is anyone in existence — let alone feminists as a group — who thinks that we should doom our species to extinction by literally killing all men. That would be like me saying that MRA's are capable of basic human decency.

"It can also be seen in feminist science."

Most of us thinky-brain human beings just call it "science."

"Mary Koss gets away with her 1 in 4 rape statistic by dismissing the views of those women who answered “yes” to her rape questionnaire but indicated that they had not been sexually assaulted in personal interviews because the result of the interview was not useful. Qualitative research methods have become increasingly popular in social science research because of the subjective nature of the data analysis used in those methods. Pragmatist philosophy considers the purpose of science to be one of determining action and problem solving rather than one of describing reality or seeking truth. The position is that science should be evaluated in terms of its usefulness, not its accuracy. It allows the use of an interpretive lens to analyze data, thereby biasing the results according to the bias inherent in the lens. Confirmation bias enters into the research through the interpretive lens. In feminist research, the lens confirms that any discovered disadvantage of women relative to men must be the result of discrimination that can be attributed to Patriarchy or hegemonic masculinity. Research can then be conducted in order to “give voice to” underrepresented groups or to drive a political agenda, using subjective realities in place of objective fact."

There's so much bullshit in this paragraph that I'm unable to respond to all of it (my brain wants to go in 20 directions at once, and also wants to just eat a pound of bacon and cry for the fact that anyone thinks this isn't mind-destroyingly idiotic), but I just want to point out the ASTOUNDING level of irony and lack of self-awareness necessary for someone to reference confirmation bias literally one paragraph after bringing up the Sharon Osborne thing. Jesus tapdancing Christ.

"This is precisely what we see in feminist research when it is used to influence public policy. Objective Truth is unimportant. Subject truth is all that matters. The American Association of University Women can continue to deny the objective Truth that the educational system disadvantages boys and men relative to girls and women and claim the opposite by emphasizing the few areas that remain where girls and women are still at a disadvantage. The relative importance of these areas of disadvantage is unimportant. What matters is that areas of disadvantage remain of girls and women and those areas are what should be addressed."

Notice that he does not point out any evidence that the educational system disadvantages boys. The reason for this is that IT FUCKING DOESN'T. "More women go to college than men" is not evidence of systematic discrimination. If the educational system disadvantaged men, I would not have graduated either college or high school, because I was a fucking HORRIBLE student.

Also, please read that last sentence again. I know your brain probably skipped over it in self-defense, but it's the most problematic thing in this entire article. He just straight-up said "the obvious disadvantages and difficulties women have to deal with every goddamn day in society do not matter." For anyone still wondering: this is what MRA's actually believe — and the reason that when they someday pass from this mortal coil, they will do so with naught but their hatred to comfort them.

"Patriarchy can’t be put in jail. But it doesn’t need to be. Since Patriarchy is a feminist construct, it can be killed by opening the box; for when the box is opened, the true nature of men and women (as human beings) can be seen and will be shown to be in conflict with the subjective reality of feminism. If a goal of the MHRM is to dispel the victim nation, all it need do is open the feminist box and encourage people to look inside."

Hehehe, "feminist box." Wait, no, sorry, that was immature. I thought the goal of the MRM (I adamantly refuse to acknowledge the re-branded H, because fuck you, MRA's) was neckbeards for all? FUCKDAMMIT, I did it again.

I could just end this by pointing out that pretending something isn't real will neither a) make it not real, nor b) make it go away? Yeah, why don't I just do that. After all, logic is the mark of a great debater.

Also, all MRA's are sociopathic avatars of misogyny and bile who equate not having absolute power in all things with being discriminated against. Yeah, maybe I'm just a good debater.